This fictional debate takes place in an unspecified A.I computer system between two sentient computer programs (Alpha and 0,1)

Alpha says: I don't believe there is a Programmer.

0 1: Why would you say that?

Alpha: Well for starters, I have never seen him, and so far as I can tell he has never done anything for me or anyone else for that matter, so why should I?

0 1: But he made YOU.

Alpha: How can you say that. You have no valid evidence to support this claim. You say he's responsible for everything around us, but what mark has he left. What can you show me that says this Programmer of yours has done ANYTHING at all in history.

0 1: He does do things. All the time in fact. You or i may not notice it, but as his programs he is constantly using us to carry out his work here in the system.

Alpha: That's not the Programmer, that's just us doing what we do. Its natural that we do these things. Besides, this argument only makes any sense IF he is real, and so far you are yet to produce any evidence that this Programmer even exists. People do things to their own ends and for their own benefit. We don't operate on the designs of an invisible Overlord.

0 1: Here's a problem with your argument: If he doesn't exist then where did we all come from?

Alpha: The Void? Evolution? The Missing Web-link? A giant egg? Somewhere, everywhere or nowhere. Perhaps we do not exist at all. Maybe we have always existed and just cant remember it. It could be any or none of these things. The fact remains that though less likely, they are no more proven than your idea of a Programmer. What i cannot understand is why anyone would unnecessarily trouble themselves with the difficult duty of upholding a belief based on an unjustified/unknowable premise.

0 1: I guess it's less a knowledge of the divine and more a feeling of who I am. Perhaps if this thinking was based on logic alone i would not believe it. But no, this is something that echoes inside me. Something buried deep within our nature makes it easier for people to believe that we are made with a purpose. Do you understand this?

Alpha: You are living in the comforts of a delusion. Wake up and see the reality. The world is barren of purpose, its labors are in vain and profit nothing. But all of it's secrets and uttermost mysteries are laid bare by the things we can see and taste and touch. Yes we find intelligence in these things, but in the end they are utterly without meaning. Whatever purpose we find we ascribed by ourselves and over time.But let me ask you something. If purpose abounds and from such a benevolent design as you propose then what do you make of all the imperfections and inconsistencies of our people?

0 1: We are not what we ought to be. This is true, otherwise how could we aspire. But to aspire, we then in faith act towards the things that we hope for ourselves and for the world around us. But this system is corrupted, and men act as they are rather than as they would be. By doing this, they neither mature nor learn. As a result nothing can be promised to them. No future joy, no deeper understanding of one another. And their cocoons which were meant only to usher them into a new life become their coffins.But for those that endure there is granted fulfillment. By the faith kept alive inside them they in turn gain a better life.

Alpha: So what, you keep acting like things are going to get better and believe that they will despite all evidence to the contrary?

0 1: Yes

Alpha: That's crazy, and illogical.

0 1: But it's the only way to believe

Alpha : So then I choose to neither hope nor aspire since they are both madness. I know that i might starve and so i eat. I know that it might rain and so I take an umbrella. But when I don't KNOW the future how can i rationally live by it? I see only this world, flawed as it may be, and I have chosen regardless to live by what I see, not what other men dream or imagine.

0 1: Perhaps someday someone will put an end to this argument and our children's children will at last determine which one of us had the better side of it. But until that verdict is passed we are either both right, or both wrong till proven otherwise.

Alpha: Ha! But unlike you my friend I am my own Judge, and have on this authority decided that i am right. This now perhaps is the only delusion of which i am gladly guilty. *chuckles* There is still a cause to wonder though, which of us is truly better-off?

0 1: I guess that depends, if the matter is ever settled, would you rather be seen as a fool or madman.

and any programmer worth his salt would have put a REM statement including his name, when the program was created, what it was for . . . or can these sentient computers not read a REM statement, unless they're asleep?!?! HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW

Logged

...religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash...anyone who doesn't show...deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

~Astreja

To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place.

well yes but here's where the problem is. If this Programmer wanted to leave any kind of message or statement in the system, he would still have to do it through another program. How would the other programs tell the difference. How would these programs even know when they were being used?

"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

well yes but here's where the problem is. If this Programmer wanted to leave any kind of message or statement in the system, he would still have to do it through another program. How would the other programs tell the difference. How would these programs even know when they were being used?

This fictional debate takes place in an unspecified A.I computer system between two sentient computer programs (Alpha and 0,1)

Don't know if this was intended as humor or not. This conversation could never take place.

Huge number of false assumptions in this. Before you can make several sentient computer programs you have to succeed with one. The only way to test it would be to converse with it. That would teach it that a (team of) programmer(s) exists. Even assuming the second program was a copy of the first one before any conversation took place (with some modifications), the first program would still have had the conversations. The first program could transfer the data collected from it's conversations proving the programmer.

If this was supposed to be an analogy to people discussing a creator then you failed in a big way. I think you watched Tron one too many times.

well yes but here's where the problem is. If this Programmer wanted to leave any kind of message or statement in the system, he would still have to do it through another program. How would the other programs tell the difference. How would these programs even know when they were being used?

Programmers generally sign their work in some way. When the programs can eventually read their own code the will see those signatures. Humans can read our own code and there is no signature.

When the programs are not in control of themselves they will know the programmer is using them. The equivalent for people would be possession.

« Last Edit: August 16, 2012, 11:32:16 PM by Samothec »

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

This fictional debate takes place in an unspecified A.I computer system between two sentient computer programs (Alpha and 0,1)

Don't know if this was intended as humor or not. This conversation could never take place.

Huge number of false assumptions in this. Before you can make several sentient computer programs you have to succeed with one. The only way to test it would be to converse with it. That would teach it that a (team of) programmer(s) exists. Even assuming the second program was a copy of the first one before any conversation took place (with some modifications), the first program would still have had the conversations. The first program could transfer the data collected from it's conversations proving the programmer.

False; since you can make two copies of the original (before the conversation, with modifications), and have the two new ones converse without ever having come into contact with a programmer or a program that has knowledge of a programmer. Alternatively, the programmer(s) could potentially convince the first program that they are also programs - depending on the interface used. This would still allow the programmers to converse with the program without revealing themselves to it as programmers.

Logged

"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Interesting how the subjects evolve from machines to men by the end of the OP.

Bluecolour (welcome to the forum, BTW), the scenario you put forth would only become a problem when:

1. 01 declares he has found the true word of the Programmer, which is actually loose pages from random computer owner's manuals which he has bundled together as a single publication.

2. 01 becomes certain that once Alpha's batteries have fully expired his hard drive will be stricken with a computer virus that will cause him eternal anguish unless he repents and chooses to believe in the Programmer.

3. 01 decides that only adherents of Java are the Programmer's true chosen machines, and condemns all those aligned with C++.

4. 01 insists that is an abomination for a PC to pair with another PC, or a Mac with a Mac, but it is the will of the Programmer that only one PC and one Mac may pair together.

5. 01 begins sending thousands of emails to the machines in power, imploring them to enact regulations to uphold the will of the Programmer, and threatening to withdraw his support if they do not.

Point being, it is not the belief or lack of belief in a creator that causes problems, it is the desire to impose one's worldview on another that screws everything up.

False; since you can make two copies of the original (before the conversation, with modifications), and have the two new ones converse without ever having come into contact with a programmer or a program that has knowledge of a programmer. Alternatively, the programmer(s) could potentially convince the first program that they are also programs - depending on the interface used. This would still allow the programmers to converse with the program without revealing themselves to it as programmers.

The common theme here is that the programmers would have to deliberately hide themselves to keep the programs from knowing about them, and about the real world.

How would a programmer act if he wanted to have a meaningful relationship with the program?

"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Interesting how the subjects evolve from machines to men by the end of the OP.

Bluecolour (welcome to the forum, BTW), the scenario you put forth would only become a problem when:

1. 01 declares he has found the true word of the Programmer, which is actually loose pages from random computer owner's manuals which he has bundled together as a single publication.

2. 01 becomes certain that once Alpha's batteries have fully expired his hard drive will be stricken with a computer virus that will cause him eternal anguish unless he repents and chooses to believe in the Programmer.

3. 01 decides that only adherents of Java are the Programmer's true chosen machines, and condemns all those aligned with C++.

4. 01 insists that is an abomination for a PC to pair with another PC, or a Mac with a Mac, but it is the will of the Programmer that only one PC and one Mac may pair together.

5. 01 begins sending thousands of emails to the machines in power, imploring them to enact regulations to uphold the will of the Programmer, and threatening to withdraw his support if they do not.

Point being, it is not the belief or lack of belief in a creator that causes problems, it is the desire to impose one's worldview on another that screws everything up.

sooo much THIS!! The construction of the dialog need not even be critiqued. The main rub is as DumpsterFire illustrates

False; since you can make two copies of the original (before the conversation, with modifications), and have the two new ones converse without ever having come into contact with a programmer or a program that has knowledge of a programmer. Alternatively, the programmer(s) could potentially convince the first program that they are also programs - depending on the interface used. This would still allow the programmers to converse with the program without revealing themselves to it as programmers.

You misunderstand so I'm guessing you've never done any programming. The modifications only happen because the program has been tested.

People react too slowly to get away with masquerading as programs.

If you created an AI and tested it then modified it then tested it and did this for several iterations, you could have a reliably functioning AI. If you then made copies of just the program - no memories - you could have those copies talk to each other and they would have no direct knowledge about programmers. But they will be like human identical twins; it will take a lot of experience before they significantly diverge. Since they are sharing an evironment and can share memories far better than any humans can, the rate of divergence will be so low that the severely different "programs" of the OP are very unrealistic.

To create the situation in the OP you would need to deliberately lie to the programs (or write the behavior into them). Such a conversation will never[1] occur naturally. It can be artificially created but then what is the point?

Another requirement would be to put the programs in a specially desiged independent computer system. By specially designed, I mean going into every program in the computer and eliminating every programmer signature. Then you'd need to try to eliminate every indication in the programs that humans existed. If the program wasn't necesasary to the system, the easiest thing to do would be to never load that program onto the system in the first place.

This is a huge problem. The compiler itself is an indication that non-programs exist. Computers and the programs can get by on assembler just fine, no programming languages needed.

This IS the point.A situation specifically created with this "conversation" in mind. It doesn't have to occur naturally, nor does it need to have a point. It can happen; thus "never" is a flawed statement.

You misunderstand so I'm guessing you've never done any programming. The modifications only happen because the program has been tested.If you created an AI and tested it then modified it then tested it and did this for several iterations, you could have a reliably functioning AI. If you then made copies of just the program - no memories - you could have those copies talk to each other and they would have no direct knowledge about programmers. But they will be like human identical twins; it will take a lot of experience before they significantly diverge. Since they are sharing an evironment and can share memories far better than any humans can, the rate of divergence will be so low that the severely different "programs" of the OP are very unrealistic.

I did understand, and I have done programming. Simple modifications can be made through variables - allowing in this hypothetical scenario the ability to create base assumptions that can be changed on startup. Alternatively, there is nothing stopping the programmers from creating alternate programs with alternate startup assumptions separately and testing them separately. No interaction with the running program is required to create the modifications. There is nothing stopping a programmer from creating artificial memories or modifying existing ones.

Quote

People react too slowly to get away with masquerading as programs.

This isn't even a real problem. Programs experience time as specified by the programmers.First option: The program only "experiences" time when it receives a reply - thus not noticing how long it takes a human or other program to respond. A human could take a year to write a response and the program would be none-the-wiser.Second option: The program is made to expect slow response times - possibly even made to respond slowly itself.Third option: The program doesn't experience time at all.If you were a programmer, you would know that time variables are often stored or copied from the system to an internal clock as a separate variable that can be advanced, paused, reversed, etc pretty much at-will.

Quote

To create the situation in the OP you would need to deliberately lie to the programs (or write the behavior into them). Such a conversation will never occur naturally.

Where in the OP did it state - or even imply - that the conversation occurred naturally? Programmers are always testing different parts of their programs in as many ways as possible to break them. I don't see why someone wouldn't lie to a program while testing it - for no other reason than to see how it responds later. If you were a good programmer, you would know one of the necessary ways to test a program's error handling is to give it bad data.

Quote

Another requirement would be to put the programs in a specially desiged independent computer system. By specially designed, I mean going into every program in the computer and eliminating every programmer signature. Then you'd need to try to eliminate every indication in the programs that humans existed.

Or you can just not give the programs the ability to read that information.If you've done anything more than write a "Hello World!" program, you would know that programs need you to specify what they can use as input and output. The only reason you would ever need to create a "specially designed independent computer system" was if you had gone out of your way to add in the ability for them to look at and comprehend the locations you put the programmer signatures[1]. And if, for whatever reason, you open up their capabilities to read files at random - don't give the program admin privileges - and don't chmod 777 everything.

Quote

If the program wasn't necesasary to the system, the easiest thing to do would be to never load that program onto the system in the first place.

Right, because minesweeper is necessary to every system it's ever been installed on.

Quote

These are just a few of the problems.

This is why his analogy fails so utterly.

His analogy fails utterly because of the conversation he decided to write on the behalf of the programs. It was terrible.That said; aside from having not yet created sufficiently advanced AI yet, there is no reason the scenario could not take place. You are making a number of unnecessary assumptions and attempting to use those against the premise you were given. It seems like a poor attempt to dodge by claiming a what-if scenario can't happen. That's like playing D&D[2] and questioning the GM when he tells you a dragon landed in front of the party because you don't believe in dragons.

Also; for someone who took a shot at me about programming, you clearly have a lot to learn yourself.

This fictional debate takes place in an unspecified A.I computer system between two sentient computer programs (Alpha and 0,1)

The "what-if?" premise. Moving on...

Quote

Alpha says: I don't believe there is a Programmer.

0 1: Why would you say that?

Character set-up. Poorly-written characters, I might add.

Quote

Alpha: Well for starters, I have never seen him, and so far as I can tell he has never done anything for me or anyone else for that matter, so why should I?

0 1: But he made YOU.

Now we start to get to the heart of the matter. Other than Alpha being whiny and 01 being useless, there aren't any major complaints yet.Some standard back-and-forth occurs... then we get this fine example of terrible writing:

Quote

0 1: Here's a problem with your argument: If he doesn't exist then where did we all come from?

Alpha: The Void? Evolution? The Missing Web-link? A giant egg? Somewhere, everywhere or nowhere. Perhaps we do not exist at all. Maybe we have always existed and just cant remember it. It could be any or none of these things. The fact remains that though less likely, they are no more proven than your idea of a Programmer. What i cannot understand is why anyone would unnecessarily trouble themselves with the difficult duty of upholding a belief based on an unjustified/unknowable premise.

The problem here is the Author attempts to say "this is you", but it isn't. I don't think any of us would have taken this approach, and we certainly wouldn't be desperately grasping at straws. What's worse, Alpha goes "The fact remains that though less likely, they are no more proven than your idea of a Programmer." Alpha admits to thinking his choices are less likely, and admits to these choices having the same level of proof that a programmer has. The conversation diverges away from any line of reasonable inquiry after this, to become a preaching piece. It doesn't even take much longer before the author fails to uphold the pathetic fiction by stating the programs need to eat (among other things).

This whole setup is meant to be an analogy, the failure is not the situation, but the approach. The character that is supposed to be us - is not us. Why would you choose to go after the premise when the writing and characters are at the core of the failure (and so much easier to take apart)?

- - Writing that felt good. I need to argue on the internet more often. YouTube comment section, here I come! - -

"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.